DIS: Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch (attn. Arbitor)
I didn't get twg's message to BAK that Gaelan quoted. Did anyone else miss it? On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 19:19, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Hey, it’s not a proper Agoran return if there isn’t at least one CFJ involved. > > Gaelan > > > On Jan 1, 2020, at 9:29 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > *sigh* > > > > CFJ: "Alexis is a player." > > > > My first reading was "(register and prefer) as soon as I have time", too, > > and e explicitly says that e is "in a hurry at the moment", i.e., does not > > have time. So I would argue for FALSE, I think. > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > >> On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 5:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 1/1/2020 12:54 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > >>> > >>> I intend to register and prefer this case as soon as I have time to figure > >>> out how to do that. > >> > >> Parenthesis problems - I'm not sure if the "I intend to register" is part > >> of > >> the conditional on "as soon as I have time"? > >> > >> Based on the grammar, my cold first reading was: > >> "(register and prefer) as soon as I have time". > >> NOT > >> "register, and (prefer as soon as I have time)." > >> > >> Most importantly, welcome back Alexis! > >> > >> -G. > >> > >> Agora mailing list > >> ag...@listserver.tue.nl > >> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora > > > > > > ___ > > Agora mailing list > > ag...@listserver.tue.nl > > https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora > > ___ > Agora mailing list > ag...@listserver.tue.nl > https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora -- - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch (attn. Arbitor)
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 12:31, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > *sigh* > > CFJ: "Alexis is a player." > Gratuitous: I agree with twg's arguments.
Re: DIS: Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 8:13 AM James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 06:09, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion > wrote: > > *Sigh* I seriously think considering history to be a part of game state > > may have been a mistake, but apparently there's now precedence for it... > > I had assumed it wasn't until I did the research that became my > thesis. I think it would probably be cleaner if it weren't. I still think it’s cleaner with it in gamestate, largely per your thesis, > > > This means that if any Rule changes need to be made to correct the game > > state, then no mere proposal can emulate ratification in a succinct way > > unless it is enabled by an even higher-Power/Precedence rule such as Rule > > 1551 (Ratification, Power 3.1). > > I'm pretty sure no rule changes were purported to happen. Aris > attempted to distribute Proposal 8277, but that doesn't change any > rules. You’re correct, AFAIK. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 06:09, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: > *Sigh* I seriously think considering history to be a part of game state > may have been a mistake, but apparently there's now precedence for it... I had assumed it wasn't until I did the research that became my thesis. I think it would probably be cleaner if it weren't. > This means that if any Rule changes need to be made to correct the game > state, then no mere proposal can emulate ratification in a succinct way > unless it is enabled by an even higher-Power/Precedence rule such as Rule > 1551 (Ratification, Power 3.1). I'm pretty sure no rule changes were purported to happen. Aris attempted to distribute Proposal 8277, but that doesn't change any rules. -- - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020, James Cook wrote: I object to both intents. Sorry to prolong this, but I'm not convinced this gets around Ørjan's objection. Here are two modifications to the gamestate that could be made at 00:15:01 on Dec 14 that would make the first document true: a) Insert two events into the historical record: a-o and a-b become discussion fora. Flip both publicity switches to Discussion. b) Insert four events into the historical record: a-o and a-b became discussion fora, then immediately after, became Public fora again. Both of these involve four changes (either two additions to history plus two changes to Publicity switches, or four additions to history). The first one is what we intend, but I'm not confident that it is the unique minimal modification. *Sigh* I seriously think considering history to be a part of game state may have been a mistake, but apparently there's now precedence for it... Is there anything wrong with passing a proposals that says "Change the gamestate to what it would be if a-b and a-o's publicity had been switched to Discussion at time X and then switched back to Public at time Y, so that none of the intervening messages on either list were sent via a public forum"? Generally, the main problem that I recall (but might not be the only one) is the following provision in Rule 105 (Rule Changes, Power 3): A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise take effect. This means that if any Rule changes need to be made to correct the game state, then no mere proposal can emulate ratification in a succinct way unless it is enabled by an even higher-Power/Precedence rule such as Rule 1551 (Ratification, Power 3.1). Alternatively, I wouldn't be averse to just fixing the uncertainties one by one. I don't think there are that many. A few Master switches, some income earned, the state of the PM election, and whether a proposal was distributed. Anything else? Maybe you're right. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch
Aris wrote: I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): ~~~ Effective date: Dec 14 00:15:01 UTC 2019 At Dec 14 00:15:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and agora-business became discussion fora. ~~~ I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): ~~~ Effective date: Dec 28 01:45:01 UTC 2019 At Dec 28 01:45:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and agora-business became public fora. ~~~ Okay, so if this goes through, then I think the effects on the ADoP DB would be limited to: * All individual events during the above time period were ineffective. (I don't think any of them were sent to BAK.) * Registrar and Treasuror reports haven't been published since before the troubles. * Prime Minister election initiated on Nov 3 is still waiting for resolution (of failed-quorum). Dec 28 attempt to resolve, while outside the above time period, was ineffective due to stating wrong result. * Comptrollor is vacant.
